[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[drsmith]

On info availlable, the north/south corridoor strategy looks approximately like this.

Northern Expressway: 2010 (completed).
South Road Superway: late 2013.
Southern Expressway duplication: 2014.
Northern Connector: 2016/17 if funded.
Sturt Road/Flinders Drive trench: 2021.
Regency Road to Grange Road: Post 2021.

[Jim Boukas]

In my opinion, it's not practical to decide at this point in time, which order the different projects should be done in, because as each project is completed, it has the ability to change the nature of the road use along other parts. For instance, the building of the connector from South Road to James Congdon Drive has moved some traffic away from the South Road / SDBD junction and the Henley Beach Road junction, thereby reducing the urgency of upgrading these junctions. Similarly, upgrading the Ayliffes Road junction could have a huge impact on the amount of traffic that continues north up South Road.

Was that one of the outputs from the $35M spent to tell us where the traffic conjestion along south road is or are you just feeling it again?

[mattblack]

one onders why the latter does not include the Ayliffes intersection.

Probably look to incorporate the intersection for the new mitsubishi precint into this which wont be required for a few years at least, wouldnt have to be that expensive or extensive either.

[ac83]

In my opinion, it's not practical to decide at this point in time, which order the different projects should be done in, because as each project is completed, it has the ability to change the nature of the road use along other parts. For instance, the building of the connector from South Road to James Congdon Drive has moved some traffic away from the South Road / SDBD junction and the Henley Beach Road junction, thereby reducing the urgency of upgrading these junctions. Similarly, upgrading the Ayliffes Road junction could have a huge impact on the amount of traffic that continues north up South Road.

Was that one of the outputs from the $35M spent to tell us where the traffic conjestion along south road is or are you just feeling it again?

[mattblack]

In my opinion, it's not practical to decide at this point in time, which order the different projects should be done in, because as each project is completed, it has the ability to change the nature of the road use along other parts. For instance, the building of the connector from South Road to James Congdon Drive has moved some traffic away from the South Road / SDBD junction and the Henley Beach Road junction, thereby reducing the urgency of upgrading these junctions. Similarly, upgrading the Ayliffes Road junction could have a huge impact on the amount of traffic that continues north up South Road.

Was that one of the outputs from the $35M spent to tell us where the traffic conjestion along south road is or are you just feeling it again?

I think Rhino is using common sense, a strange concept for some. In the plan it does show that some intersections require immediate attention which is what the govt. is doing, when these are done then we will see what needs to be done when. Putting out a plan for the entire route with costings is 1) useless because by the time they get around to it all it will be 20 years down the track and 2) Politically stupid because they will be setting themselves up for comments like 'They will bankrupt the state with this plan'. Although it sucks, slow and steady wins the race.

[ac83]

My applause was for the constant bickering between Jim and Rhino. Although I do admit that I may have started the initial arguing!

However mattblack I do agree with your comments. Slow and steady does win the race but try telling the average Adelaidean knocker that

[Jim Boukas]

My applause was for the constant bickering between Jim and Rhino. Although I do admit that I may have started the initial arguing!

However mattblack I do agree with your comments. Slow and steady does win the race but try telling the average Adelaidean knocker that

The other states have had freeways for the last 10 maybe 20 years, and we've got a further 20 years to wait, fantastic, win the race, i reckon we've been lapped a few times over

It's not bickering it's healthy arguing, hey and don't you start hassling me also, or i'll get Don Vito Corleone to pay you a visit, hope you don't own a horse

[AtD]

I thought you hated freeways?

[rhino]

I thought you hated freeways?

My thoughts exactly. I think I can hear a Camaro in the distance somewhere.

For the record, my personal opinion is that we don't need a freeway for the full length of South Road, induced demand being one of the reasons, cost being another. I do, however, advocate a traffic light free road, utilising underpasses, overpasses, and whatever is necessary. It doesn't have to be a freeway, and can even be a 60km/hour road. If we are able to drive the 17km or so from Regency Park to Darlington in 17 minutes because there are no traffic lights or level crossings, it will be a huge advantage to those who need to use the road, but not enough of an advantage to get people off public transport and into their cars, clogging it up. We might get a win-win situation.

Just my thoughts, I'm not saying "we should do this", as I obviously haven't done a comprehensive study on it.

[rev]

Jim Boukas...if your background is what I think it is, that's an interesting name

[Jim Boukas]

Jim Boukas...if your background is what I think it is, that's an interesting name

Ahh the advantage of not being a mono-linguist!!

[adam73837]

On info availlable, the north/south corridoor strategy looks approximately like this.

Northern Expressway: 2010 (completed).
South Road Superway: late 2013.
Southern Expressway duplication: 2014.
Northern Connector: 2016/17 if funded.
Sturt Road/Flinders Drive trench: 2021.
Regency Road to Grange Road: Post 2021.

I know I'll probably get crucified for this and get told things that imply that I'm "in cahoots with camaro68 and/or Jim Boukas", but I can't help but feel (sorry, rhino ) that there's something wrong with this. Call me naive to economics or impatient if you want, but doesn't >10 years seem like quite a long time to fix up a road? If we stick to the plan explained above, by the time we've finished with these small (yes, small) upgrades, won't South Road be just as congested as it was before we started constructing these band-aids? In fact, even if we're aiming for what rhino suggested, we're still looking at ~2025 before South Road is traffic light free, because remember, we can't forget all those school zones, community centers, pedestrian crossings and side streets, now can we? But what really amazes me is that so many people on this forum are quite content knowing this!

So what do these individuals propose we do when we've finished these upgrades mentioned above and we're essentially "back where we started"? Do they propose we link Marion Rd, Holbrooks Rd and East Tce (ala Regency/ Muller roads) and then create a series of underpasses (ala South Road)? Or perhaps we could create underpasses along the length of Goodwood and Tapleys Hill/Brighton Roads?

What I don't understand is - wouldn't it be cheaper to build a completely new road adjacent to South Road and acquire all the properties in the way have construction take 3-5 years; than to upgrade South Road itself and have construction take 10-15 years...

No it wouldn't - it would be much more expensive. The savings from not having work restricted by the need to keep traffic flowing would be dwarfed by the huge extra cost of land acquisition. Earthworks costs wouldn't be any lower (and may even be higher)

My turn for some dissecting... . But Aidan, isn't it all relative? On one hand, we're acquiring some land for patch-up jobs, while on the other hand we could be acquiring, say for argument's sake, twice as much land and in return we're getting a larger road capable of transporting more of the long-distance traffic quicker? (By "long-distance", I mean both commuter traffic from the Northern and Southern suburbs and also freight)

and there would probably also be significant heritage issues.

Please... don't.... what are we going to be trying to save? Is there really anything along that route that is so archeologically significant that it should stand in the way of large-scale projects such as this that would benefit thousands and thousands of people each and every day?

Plus of course there'd be enormous political opposition from those people who suddenly found themselves living next to a major road.

And that's what it's all about, isn't it? I'm not specifically pointing the finger at Rann and Co here as I'm sure the Liberals wouldn't be very different, but the point is that nowadays, small-town politics controls it all. A few people kick up a stink because they don't like the concept of living in a city yet having to put up with city-like noises and the politicians bow down to them because heaven forbid they do something for the greater good at the expense of the absolute comfort of a few.

As to the time taken, that really depends more on how much funding the politicians are willing to commit than any technical aspect of how the work is done. Upgrading South Road itself could be done in 3 to 5 years - there's no technical reason why the projects would need to be done sequentially. But it would mean that construction companies would tender high, as (with so much other work on) all companies could easily afford to lose a few bids.

If upgrading South Road is the State Government's Number 1 Transport priority, then why should this be such a large issue if this project could take 2-3 times as long as it could?

In conclusion, while I am glad to see things such as the South Road Superway and the Darlington Transport Study being undertaken, I can't help but wonder what is going to happen to the route going from St Mary's to Regency Park. This is, undoubtedly, the most difficult part to fix and if we're going to spend billions on it, we'd better get it right. Now, I'm no Civil Engineer who specialises in transport or an Urban Planner, but if one option is to build a tunnel from Torrens Road to Clovelly Park, what happens between Emerson and St Mary's? Do we build another tunnel? Do we build several underpasses or overpasses? And (like I said above) what about the likes of Castle Plaza and the several businesses located along this section of road? Food for thought.

And that's my

[koalaboy]

The term freeway doesn't have to mean 100km/h, it just needs to be free-flowing. i.e no traffic lights. With traffic lights it becomes a highway. Emerson was not designed for more than 80km/h, nor was Gallipoli, so South Rd will be a low-speed freeway based on the constraints that already exist. The Darlington ER says it will be designed for 80 as well.

I think building on a new alignment would be cheaper for a number of reasons. South Rd is narrow and fronted by mainly businesses, which are expensive to acquire and time consuming to relocate. You save on service relocation, which are predominently on the main roads. Services can't be moved until the land is available to relocate them off to one side, which adds to the delay. You have to build under busy traffic which is massively more expensive than green fields.

In comparison, a new alignment would be through cheaper residential land, with only minor services and away from traffic which means fewer stages of construction. The downside would be the time to acquire, the massive public opposition (rightly so) and the fact that it would require significant sections to be built in one hit otherwise it would become road to nowhere. Gradually upgrading South Rd allows the road to be upgraded section by section based on the availability of funding

[Norman]

The section from St. Marys and Regency Park is currently subject to a study anyway to determine the best outcome, so there's no point doing anything with that until it's complete in 2011/12.

[Nort]

On info availlable, the north/south corridoor strategy looks approximately like this.

Northern Expressway: 2010 (completed).
South Road Superway: late 2013.
Southern Expressway duplication: 2014.
Northern Connector: 2016/17 if funded.
Sturt Road/Flinders Drive trench: 2021.
Regency Road to Grange Road: Post 2021.

I know I'll probably get crucified for this and get told things that imply that I'm "in cahoots with camaro68 and/or Jim Boukas", but I can't help but feel (sorry, rhino ) that there's something wrong with this. Call me naive to economics or impatient if you want, but doesn't >10 years seem like quite a long time to fix up a road? If we stick to the plan explained above, by the time we've finished with these small (yes, small) upgrades, won't South Road be just as congested as it was before we started constructing these band-aids? In fact, even if we're aiming for what rhino suggested, we're still looking at ~2025 before South Road is traffic light free, because remember, we can't forget all those school zones, community centers, pedestrian crossings and side streets, now can we? But what really amazes me is that so many people on this forum are quite content knowing this!

If you think that in 10 years the upgrades will become basically worthless then it becomes pointless to do them quickly (and much more expensively) either.

One good reason for doing South Road in stages is that it will allow the road to stay semi-functional during that time. Trying to upgrade the entire thing at once would give gridlock along the entire corridor for years anyway.